Governance in northern and southern NGOs

On a bright, sunny day 1th of April 2009, directors and other representatives of 12 member organisations met with the International Advisory Board (IAB) members in Concordia in the Hague. The purpose was to exchange with the IAB-members on Governance of northern and southern NGOs.

During the introduction member organisations were asked to explain their own governing principles ((self regulated association), self selected oligarchy (foundation) or constituent based (link to movements)). At the same time they were invited to pose a question concerning governance that they would like to discuss with the board.

There were a lot of questions. Examples of the some of the questions that were posed were: 'Working only with existing NGOs; How do you get to the core of a shared vision on social, political governance issues with international networkpartners?' or 'How to set agendas of southern partners while you work with a license agreement contract? How do you manage good ownership in a way that there is enough agreement to have a successful outcome?' or 'What role could PSO play in strengthening southern NGOs?'

Some of them could be clustered on the more abstract level of power and legitimacy in governance, while others where more on the level of practical solutions for governance in international relations/ networks. After the break two groups were formed to discuss the different questions.

Power and Legitimacy of (North-South) NGOs

One of the participants stated: 'Which of the many southern NGOs are legitimate representatives of legitimite needs?'

IAB-member Alan Fowler noted: 'There is no evidence that your agenda is legitimate (a moral imperative).'

Sheela Patel, also an IAB-member, took the discussion to the nect level. 'This is a ping pong game. Who gives you the legitimacy to define what is a legitimate need. At some point, it was decided that southern governance was useless, and the alternative was introduced and northern NGOs came in the picture. Key question now is: 'What do you want to produce from a partnership?' Just a subcontracter, or a sustainable development partner with whom you can share your vision and work on it together? Don't look at southern NGOs as vehicles. They can become future enterpreneurs if you invest in them now.'

Another participant said: 'Sometimes we can achieve goals with NGO partners. If we do not succeed, it may be necessary to end the relationship. Our experience is that private entrepreneurs can sometimes reach goals quicker. From our perspective it can be legitimate to end a relation.'

'We should not forget the system of development assistance. The way that money is distributed, has a huge influence on governance.'

The reality is that the paying party, has more to say. Although, we wish it wasn't like that. That is why minister Koenders wants counter power.

Fowler: 'There is in internal paradox in this thinking of powershift, a deep systemic problem. There is aided change and also non-aided change, and, there is a relation between them. What lies behind are deeper questions such as: 'The idea on how politics and the civil society should function. What is the understanding of citizenship? More informal citizenship often shows dense and rich survival mechanisms. But you have to look for them.'

'There are codes of conduct in countries on ngoism, but how are they inforced? Often reputational risk comes into play, prevending a proper use of these codes.'

Practical solutions for governance in relations to network

A participant stated: 'People in Bangladesh keep on asking to have Dutch staff posted over there, but that is not what we do. It shows they are open to innovations, change, and different perspectives.'

The discussion goes towards the value of a well defined time-frame of working together. Dance4Life gives the example of their fixed timeframe locked to the Millennium Development Goals. They strive to reach their goal in 2015, and as a result of that many partnerships will probably come to an end then.

IAB-member Alfonso Gumucio-Dagron: 'For governance a clear timeframe can be very helpfull. Many things remain undefined in relationship with southern NGOs. That often creates a lack of direction' 

Another participant noted: 'Because of the financing system we cannot promise collaboration longer than 4 years. But after prolonging such a relationship for 3 times, these partners grow in their long-term vision on the collaboration.'

The start of a relationship with a partner appears to be crucial for good governance in collaboration. Alfonso: 'The governance issue is a real challenge from the beginning. You often make the assumption of democratic working, but in fact organisations might function quite differently, including your own organisation.

There are some pratical interventions you can do to prevent mistakes in chosing partners. 

• 'Make a list of criteria, and do a good assesment.
• 'Don't go into a collaboration while your criteria are not clear yet.'
• 'Use triangulation to make sure a partner is trustworthy.'
• 'Look at the history of the organisation; what is its history in governance, ask for references.'
• 'Managing expectations is also key in this'.   

Consequences for PSO

In a short plenary session suggestions that could be consequences for PSO drawn from the group discussions where collected:

• Set criteria for partner identification. Like mapping the civil society context, some form of democratic organisations, a clear perspective on a timeframe that is long enough to give the relationship a fair chance to develop. 
• It is not easy to influence PSO-policy: 'PSO handles a 'problematic approach'. Our southern partners do not always feel the need for organisational development. But because PSO demands this development in its workling ethics, it forces its partners to also focus on fields that they don't have much attention for.'
• PSO should facilitate more meetings where members can meet at management level. At that level you can help emerge common issues.
• Make the formats to apply less time costly.
• The association is not being experiences so much. To benefit from it, this awareness can be promoted.
• Internationalise the Board of Trustees
• Merge International Advisory Board and the Board of Trustees.
• PSO should/ should not have a political dimension of PSO (as Civil Society Organisation)

Some of these suggestions raised many more questions and led to intense discussions again. It is clear that many of these points need to be addressed within the association. The discussion was a good platform to generate issues that are important to member organisations.

During the 'borrel' member organisations had the change to exchange with the IAB members and each other.